Urban environment — key message 3http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/urban-environment/key-messages/urban-environment-2014-message-3
Cities, due to the high concentration of people and activities, deliver and demand goods and services that impact their own areas and regions far away. While cities in Europe contribute 69 % of the continent's CO2 emissions, an urban resident consumes less energy than a rural resident. Urban density and compactness enable more energy efficient forms of housing and transport – an asset for a more sustainable Europe..
]]>No publisherSOER2010energy efficiencyurbanurban environmentglobal impactsCitiescities2010/11/28 18:40:00 GMT+1SOER 2010 Message (Deprecated)Production and consumption systems need fundamental rethinkhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/production-and-consumption-systems-need
Production and consumption systems in the European Union have large, global impacts on the environment. More sustainable ways of satisfying our needs are emerging, but they need more support, according to a new assessment.The European Environment Agency's indicator report 2014 looks at the transition to a green economy with a focus on the global environmental impacts of the EU's production-consumption systems.

The report's launch coincides with the Global Green Growth Forum, being held in Copenhagen 20-21 October, where business leaders and decision makers are discussing how changing production and consumption patterns can bring about green growth.

European Union environmental policy is framed by the ambition to "live well within the limits of the planet" by 2050. Around half of some pressures from EU consumption are exerted outside the EU, including land use, water use and some air pollutant emissions, partly because consumer goods are increasingly produced abroad, the report notes.

Europe's globalised impact can be positive, for example providing many jobs and generating a significant portion of national income in the exporting countries. But it can have some negative side-effects – unsustainable trends including large amounts of food waste across the whole food value chain, surging consumption of cheap clothes and increasing electricity consumption by European households, despite many appliances becoming more energy-efficient.

Moreover, because the environmental and social effects of these trends are often exerted beyond Europe's borders they are difficult for European policy to influence and remain largely invisible to consumers.

The EU is also highly dependent on the rest of the world for raw materials. When imports and exports are compared, it is clear that around eight times as much raw material (by weight) is brought into the EU than exported. The extraction and transport of these materials puts significant environmental pressure on the global environment.

Hans Bruyninckx, EEA Executive Director, said: "The way we live and how we produce things has a substantial impact beyond our borders. In the past Europe has largely focused on policies to make European production more eco-efficient, but we can see that in a globalised world it is increasingly important that we fundamentally re-think how we consume and produce, to encourage true sustainability throughout the whole lifecycle of products."

There are some positive societal trends that show the potential for production and consumption systems to become more sustainable. For example, many people have started to consume in different ways as new technologies make it easier to do things collectively, from sharing cars and work tools to managing community gardens. Consumers are also becoming producers in many cases, which can have environmental benefits. This trend towards 'prosumerism' may mean selling the electricity from rooftop solar panels or cooperatively producing and distributing food.

Businesses can also play an important role, the report argues. Retailers have great power to influence the products people buy, for example by 'nudging' consumers towards more sustainable products or removing the most environmentally harmful choices altogether. New business models which use waste and take back used products may also help Europe use resources more efficiently. Nonetheless, these initiatives need more political support to flourish, the report states.

]]>No publishersustainabilitylife cycleconsumption and production patternssustainable consumption and productionglobal impacts2014/10/20 11:00:00 GMT+1NewsPart 1. Introductionhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-indicator-report-2012/environmental-indicator-report-2012-ecosystem/part1.xhtml
Chapter 1. The European environment: state and outlook

1. The European environment: state and outlook

We depend on our natural environment to supply the natural resources and ecosystem services that sustain our health and well-being, and ensure that our economies prosper. Natural resources include both renewables, such as food and biomass, and non-renewables, such as fossil fuels, metals and other raw materials. Ecosystem services include providing clean air and water, fertile soils and a stable climate, as well as the capacity to absorb waste.

The supply of ecosystem services and natural resources, whether renewable or non-renewable, is limited. Over-exploiting them puts both human well-being and economic output at risk. In some cases, one type of natural resource can be substituted for another. More often, however, this is not the case and once lost a resource may be irreplaceable. This means that natural resources must be managed to ensure that they are utilised carefully and to preserve, or in some cases prolong, their collective potential to deliver ecosystem services.

This backdrop leads to three interconnected questions:

• are we currently using and managing these resources and services — materials, food, energy or water — within the limits that our planet and the European continent can sustain?

• how can we manage them more sustainably, including by using them more efficiently?

• how successful have environmental policies been in supporting the use of natural resources in a way that does not put the sustainability of our economies at risk?

The European environment — state and outlook 2010 (EEA, 2010a) provides a comprehensive report on the European environment's state, trends and prospects – to help answer the above questions. It shows that environmental policy has delivered substantial progress in reducing environmental pressures and improving the state of the environment. Yet it also stresses that major environmental challenges remain, which will have significant consequences for Europe's environment, society and economy if left unaddressed.

The key environmental challenges we face today do not differ substantially from those a decade ago — indeed, many of them, such as air pollution, water stress, nature protection and waste management, have been on the political agenda for several decades. These issues are intrinsically linked to how our economies have evolved over time, and result from how and where we use natural resources. While urgent action is needed in some cases to address imminent crises, solving many of today's environmental concerns will require rigorous, long-term efforts.

Close connections with global drivers of change pose additional challenges

While many of the environmental problems that we face are longstanding, our appreciation of their drivers and the links between them has changed. Decades of intensive use of natural capital stocks and ecosystem degradation to fuel economic development have not only created environmental pressures in Europe but have also contributed to global environmental changes. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, waste generation and various negative impacts on human health have impacts beyond European borders and have created potential risks for Europe.

Emerging and developing economies have replicated this trend in recent years but at a much faster rate, driven by increasing populations, growing numbers of middle class consumers, and rapid changes in consumption patterns towards levels in developed countries. Unprecedented global demand has chased scarcer energy and raw materials. And unparalleled shifts in economic power, growth, and trade patterns from advanced to emerging and developing economies have been accompanied by the delocalisation of production driven by competition.

Box 1.1 A selection of global megatrends

The SOER 2010 – Assessment of global megatrends (EEA, 2010b) focuses on the impact of major global trends on Europe. The assessment provides detailed analysis of social, technological, economic, environmental and political megatrends. Furthermore it summarises the links between megatrends and Europe's priority environmental challenges, and reflects on possible implications for policymaking at the European level.

Arguably more than ever, a range of long-term trends are set to shape the future European and global contexts. Many are outside Europe's direct influence. Several of these so-called global megatrends cut across social, technological, economic, political and even environmental dimensions. Key developments include changing demographic patterns or accelerating rates of urbanisation, ever faster technological changes, deepening market integration, evolving economic power shifts and climate change.

Population growth, urbanisation patterns and the emerging 'consumer middle class' in many developing countries, for example, are expected to result in continuous growth in demand for food, consumer goods and other resources. This markedly increases pressure on natural resources already under stress (such as fish stocks) or scarce (such as 'critical' raw materials), and it may put new stress on other resources. Already today international competition for resources risks causing geopolitical tensions.

In addition, the current financial and economic situation in Europe has driven urgent, short-term policy actions. In some instances this may make it more difficult to maintain a longer view on policy responses, which is often necessary when addressing environmental concerns. A key policy challenge is thus to reflect on and address potential synergies and trade-offs between the multiple economic, social and environmental goals that play out on different time scales — for example, the interplay between the urgent fiscal consolidation process in many European countries and the need to maintain ecosystem functions in the longer term.

The present environmental indicator report focuses on the latter priority.

Fundamentally, a 'green economy' is one in which environmental, economic and social policies and innovations enable society to use resources efficiently, thereby enhancing human well-being in an inclusive manner, while maintaining the natural systems that sustain us.

This report offers indicators and assessments to address a twin challenge at the heart of green economy: first, the challenge of finding ways to improve the efficiency of natural resource use in production and consumption activities and reducing the related environmental impacts; and, second, the challenge of maintaining a resilient structure and functioning of ecosystems, such that they continue to deliver the ecosystem services that support our economies and well-being.

2. Ecosystem resilience, resource efficiency and the green economy

Managing natural resources sustainably requires a green economy

The notion of a transformation to a green economy corresponds to a growing recognition that decades of creating wealth through a more 'conventional' economic model based on fossil fuels have not substantially addressed resource depletion, environmental degradation and social marginalisation (UNEP, 2011a).

While there is agreement that our economies will need to play an integral role in achieving sustainable development, what exactly a 'green economy' could or would look like is less clear. This chapter thus presents several key concepts — 'green economy', 'ecosystem resilience', 'resource efficiency' — that can help support the notion of what is involved in transforming to a green economy.

As noted previously, 'green economy' is here understood to be one in which policies and innovations enable society to use resources efficiently, enhancing human well-being in an inclusive manner, while maintaining the natural systems that sustain us. It is worth noting that several other definitions exist. These reflect different views on the relationship between a green economy and the broader concept of sustainable development (and the different implicit understandings of what constitutes economic development and human well-being).

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), for example, defines a green economy as 'an economy that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities' (UNEP, 2011a). Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) considers a green economy one 'that generates growth, creates jobs and eradicates poverty by investing in and preserving the natural capital upon which the long-term survival of our planet depends' (EC, 2011a).

The term 'green economy' was coined in the late-1980s based on the reflection that environmental protection cannot be achieved unless an environmental perspective is integrated into economic and sectoral policies. A number of related terms, including 'green growth' and 'greening the economy' are often used interchangeably — although there can be appreciable differences between them.

A 'green economy' has often been viewed as a set of principles, aims and actions, which generally include most or all of the following (EEA, 2011, based on ECLAC, 2010; EEA, 2010; UNEP, 2011a; OECD, 2011a):

• equity and fairness, both within and between generations;

• consistency with the principles of sustainable development;

• a precautionary approach to social and environmental impacts;

• an appreciation of both natural and social capital alongside other forms of capital;

• sustainable and efficient resource use, consumption and production;

• a need to fit with existing macroeconomic goals, through the creation of green jobs, poverty eradication, increased competitiveness and development in key sectors.

Most interpretations of what is a green economy recognise that ecosystems, the economy, human well-being and their related types of capital are intrinsically linked (Figure 2.1). At the core of these links is the dual challenge of:

• ensuring ecosystem resilience of the natural systems that sustain us (and limiting pressure on natural systems so that their ability to function is not lessened);

Figure 2.1 The 'green economy' concept in the context of sustainable development

Source: European Environment Agency

Ensuring ecosystem resilience to support sustained prosperity

Ecosystem resilience can be defined as the capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a (qualitatively) different state — the ability to withstand shocks or adapt when necessary. Human activities that adversely affect ecosystem resilience include those that lead to climate change, biodiversity loss, exploitation of natural resources, and pollution — or, more broadly speaking, the over-use of natural resources to fuel the economy.

Depletion of natural capital in Europe and elsewhere may jeopardise good ecological status and resilience. This can occur as a result of reduced natural resources or disruption of the relationship between the ecological components required to maintain stable environmental conditions. The impact of climate change and the adaption of ecosystems to these changes create additional uncertainty and risk. At the global scale, this risk has given rise to a discussion about global tipping points, and related environmental thresholds or planetary boundaries to avoid catastrophic environmental change (see, for example, Rockström et al., 2009).

The concept of ecosystem resilience is directly related to the notion of 'coping capacity' or 'adaptive capacity'. In environmental systems, adaptive capacity depends on factors such as genetic diversity, biological diversity and heterogeneity of landscapes. A society's adaptive capacity likewise depends on its readiness to respond to periods of change, relying on, for example, learning capacity, technological change and social fairness.

Box 2.1 What do we mean by 'resilience'?

Simply put, resilience describes the stability of a system. In an ecosystem context, this has primarily been interpreted in two ways, reflecting different aspects of ecosystem stability.

On one hand, resilience describes the time it takes for an ecosystem to recover to a quasi-equilibrium state following disturbance (this can be referred to as 'engineering resilience' or 'elasticity'). On the other hand, resilience denotes the capacity of ecosystems to absorb disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of ecological processes (this can be referred to as 'ecological resilience').

In practice, ecosystem resilience builds on three characteristics: an ecosystem's capacity to resist change, the amount of change an ecosystem can undergo and still retain the same controls on structure and function, and an ecosystem's ability to reorganise following disturbance.

Resilience thus relates to characteristics that underpin the capacity of socio-ecological systems to provide ecosystem services. There is a growing recognition that diversity plays an important part in the sustainable functioning of ecosystems. However, as resilience in ecological systems is not easily observed there is often no agreed understanding of their exact relationship.

Resilience is used analogously in social sciences and economics. In social systems, resilience is also affected by the capacity of humans to anticipate and plan for the future. Similarly, in economics, resilience also refers to the inherent and adaptive responses to hazards that enable individuals and communities to avoid potential losses.

Resilience is thus also central to social systems, especially during transition processes, as it describes the degree to which societies can build capacity for learning and adaptation. This, in turn, is directly related to the ability for self-organisation in the pursuit of long-term objectives — whether environmental, economic or social goals. Building resilience at all levels, for example through sound social safety nets, disaster risk reduction and adaptation planning, is key in any effort to achieve global sustainability (UN Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012).

Improving resource efficiency to decrease environmental pressures

'Resource efficiency' is quite a broad concept. In the European context it is understood to require 'that all resources are sustainably managed, from raw materials to energy, water, air, land and soil'. A resource efficient economy 'is competitive, inclusive and provides a high standard of living with much lower environmental impacts' (EC, 2011b).

The term 'resource efficiency' as currently used widely in the policy debate often reveals a straightforward link to an economic interpretation of efficiency. Resource efficiency involves the relationship of resource inputs to economic outputs — reducing resource use and impacts while generating greater returns.

It is important to note that increasing resource efficiency is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a green economy. Natural resource use may continue to increase in absolute terms despite increased resource efficiency. A relative decoupling of resource use from economic growth of this sort will not guarantee long-term sustainability. For this reason, the notion of absolute decoupling is central to the discussion of resource efficiency as it is also a precondition for achieving environmental impact decoupling.

Resource efficiency is nevertheless fundamental to a green economy. Any improvement in resource efficiency may also contribute to achieving wider policy objectives such as resource security and poverty eradication.

Box 2.2 What do we mean by 'decoupling'?

The term 'decoupling' is extensively used in the context of resource efficiency. An important distinction exists between two forms of decoupling: 'relative decoupling' and 'absolute decoupling' (Figure 2.2).

Relative decoupling is achieved when the growth rate of an environmental pressure (as measured, for example, by resource use or emissions) is lower than the growth rate of the related economic activity (as measured, for example, by a sector's gross value added or an economy's gross domestic product). Absolute decoupling is achieved when the related environmental pressure either remains stable or decreases while economic activity increases. In addition, 'impact decoupling' presents an enhanced form of absolute decoupling, and relates to the decoupling of environmental impacts from both the related resource use and economic activity.

Indicators such as 'resource productivity' (as measured, for example, by gross domestic product per unit of resource use) can be used as a measure of resource efficiency and to indicate decoupling. It is important to stress, however, that increases in resource productivity do not necessarily indicate absolute or impact decoupling, as they may be offset by increased economic activity.

Figure 2.2 Relative and absolute decoupling

Source: Based on EEA, 1999; UNEP, 2011b and OECD, 2011b.

A transformation to a green economy in Europe encompasses multiple dimensions

At the core of a transformation to a green economy is the integration of economic and environmental policies in a way that highlights the opportunities for new sources of economic development, while avoiding unsustainable pressure on the quality and quantity of natural capital. At the same time, such a transformation has the potential to enhance social equity and fair burden-sharing in policy design, the sharing of environmental costs and access to environmental benefits. It directly influences three main dimensions of human well-being:

• Social equity in today's Europe: for example, ensuring fair access to the benefits of nature and protection from the impacts of pollution and health risks;

• International burden-sharing: for example, by addressing hidden ecological costs in trade, fair shares in carrying environmental burdens, and environmental footprints of consumption;

• Intergenerational aspects: for example, by addressing the natural and social capital stocks that we pass on to future generations and the discount rates used in the context of long-term economic projects and environmental policies.

It is worth noting that a transformation to a green economy implies a departure from the 'business as usual' economic paradigm, which is socially and economically unsustainable. A green economy can create new opportunities, in particular related to new jobs across many sectors of the economy or through a substitution process by shifting jobs from industries that rely on non-renewable resources (such as fossil fuels) to those that rely on renewable resources (such as recycling industries).

Achieving success in such a transformation will require a mixture of measures including economic instruments (such as taxes, subsidies and trading schemes), regulatory policies (such as standard setting) and non-economic measures (such as voluntary approaches and information provision). In particular, the internalisation of environmental costs, including through more widespread application of the polluter pays principle, and reduced environmentally harmful subsidies, must be part of the policy mix. Alongside these policy instruments and measures, additional public and private action is needed to speed up the transformation. A green economy is likely to depend crucially on innovation (in particular eco-innovation), investments (for example, in green technologies) and information sharing (especially to engage citizens).

Fundamentally, moving towards a green economy in Europe necessarily requires recognition of the region's uniqueness and environmental assets (or lack of such assets). For example, the European Union is one of the world's biggest trading blocs and consumers, driving natural resource opportunities, dependencies and vulnerabilities globally. The Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EC, 2010), and the related 'Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe' (EC, 2011b) and the 'Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050' (EC, 2011c), already reflect some of this broader green economy perspective.

Reliable, relevant, targeted and timely environmental information is an essential element in implementing environmental policy and management processes. Such information can come in different formats. Broadly speaking information can be distinguished according to its level of aggregation: monitoring, data, indicators, assessments and knowledge(3).

In this context, 'monitoring' provides observations or measurements of environmental parameters. 'Data' and 'data sets' refer to the record of measurements, structured in a manner that allows further processing and comparisons. 'Indicators' can then be derived by further selection, aggregation and interpretation of multiple data, with a view to communicating the state and trends clearly and answering specific policy questions. Indicators underpin 'assessments' and result in 'knowledge', which supports policymaking.

Environmental indicators thus play a crucial role in policymaking by providing selected, aggregated and interpreted information at different stages in the policy cycle, with three major purposes (Stanners et al., 2007):

• supplying information on environmental problems, in order to enable policymakers to evaluate their seriousness (this is especially important for new and emerging issues);

• supporting policy development and priority setting by highlighting key factors in the cause-effect chain that produce environmental pressures and that policy can target;

• monitoring the effectiveness of policy responses.

Box 3.1 What is an environmental indicator?

An environmental indicator is a measure, generally quantitative, that can be used to illustrate and communicate complex environmental phenomena simply, including trends and progress over time — and thus helps provide insight into the state of the environment (EEA, 2005).

Environmental indicators may play very different roles depending on which environmental challenge they address and which stage of the policy cycle they aim to inform. It is useful to distinguish indicators that simply describe trends ('what is happening?') from those that assess progress in performance ('are we reaching targets?'), efficiency ('are we improving?'), effectiveness ('are measures and policies working?'), or total welfare ('are we on the whole better off?') (EEA, 2003; Stanners et al., 2007).

Indicators play a particularly important role in assessing the 'distance-to-target' where quantifiable policy targets have been established. Setting environmental targets and identifying appropriate indicators to monitor progress towards these targets over time are closely linked. It is difficult to implement policy and management measures if they cannot be associated with corresponding indicators.

It is worth noting, however, that while indicators can provide an accepted yardstick for benchmarking between different countries, regions, or municipalities, they can also be misleading in their simplicity. The basis for indicator selection, computation and communication must therefore be continuously kept under review to capture current developments and maintain policy relevance.

The EEA maintains a wide range of environmental indicators

Over the past two decades, the European Environment Agency (EEA) has published assessments and indicators on most European environmental issues. Today it maintains an extensive set of over 200 environmental indicators across 12 environmental themes (see Annex). Most of these indicators are explicitly designed to support environmental policies, based on data compiled by EEA, as well as statistics from other international organisations (Figure 3.1).

EEA indicators are developed against the driving force, pressure, state, impact, and response (DPSIR) assessment framework. This framework helps to structure thinking about the interplay between the environment and socio-economic activities. It is used to help design assessments, identify indicators, and communicate results and can support improved environmental monitoring and information collection (Stanners et al., 2007).

Simply put, following the DPSIR framework, social and economic developments drive (D) changes that exert pressure (P) on the environment. As a consequence, changes occur in the state (S) of the environment, which lead to impacts (I) on, for example, human health, ecosystem functioning and the economy. Finally societal and political responses (R) affect earlier parts of the system directly or indirectly.

From a policy perspective, there is a clear need for information and indicators on all parts of the DPSIR chain (Stanners et al., 2007):

• Driving force indicators describe the social and economic developments in societies and the corresponding changes in lifestyles and overall levels of consumption and production patterns. Primary driving forces are demographic changes and economic activities.

• Pressure indicators describe developments in the release of substances (e.g. emissions to air or water), physical and biological agents, the use of resources and use of land. The pressures exerted often manifest themselves in changes in environmental conditions.

• State indicators provide a description of the quantity and quality of physical phenomena (e.g. temperature), biological phenomena (e.g. species and habitat diversity) and chemical phenomena (e.g. nutrient critical loads) in a certain area.

• Impact indicators are used to describe the relevance of changes in the state of the environment, as well as the corresponding implications for ecosystems, the economy and human well-being and health.

• Response indicators refer to responses by society and policymakers that attempt to prevent, compensate, ameliorate, or adapt to changes in the state of the environment. Examples include recycling rates of domestic waste or use of renewable energy sources.

Figure 3.1 Overview of indicators developed, maintained or hosted by the EEA, usually based on statistics from international organisations and national data

Source: European Environment Agency.

The complete set of EEA indicators can be interpreted according to different types of reading or mapping, depending on the purpose to be achieved. For example, for this report the existing indicators have been considered through the lens of the green economy.

To support reflections on a green economy in Europe, this report showcases indicators relevant to the twin challenge of ensuring ecosystem resilience and improving resource efficiency (as described in Chapter 2). In view of the many different dimensions a transformation to a green economy aims to address, reliable information about these two aspects is of paramount importance.

With this in mind, the subsequent chapters of this report present an indicator-based assessment building on a selection of EEA environmental indicators for six environmental topics: nitrogen emissions and loss of biodiversity, carbon emissions and climate change, air pollution and air quality, water use and water stress, use of maritime resources and the marine environment, and use of material resources and waste.

These topics are selected to illustrate aspects that are both directly and indirectly relevant to the four priority areas of the EU's Sixth Environment Action Programme: climate change; nature and biodiversity; natural resources and waste; and environment, health and quality of life (EC, 2002; EEA, 2010). The six topics assessed here do not map directly onto these four priority areas but do address key environmental pressures related to each of them.

For each of the six topics, this report focuses on two types of indicators in a green economy context:

• First, indicators that illustrate threats to ecosystem resilience. Usually such indicators will relate to environmental thresholds or political targets. In the absence of dedicated resilience indicators (4) this report uses either state or impact indicators that are related to resilience. This reflects the assumption that an environmental system under stress will have less ability to adapt to additional pressures, thus displaying low resilience.

• Second, indicators that illustrate progress towards improving resource efficiency in the context of the respective environmental topic. Usually such indicators will relate directly to sectoral activities and belong to the group of pressure indicators. Ideally, resource efficiency indicators can be related to their key driving forces, and measure whether the environmental pressure per production unit or per economic activity is increasing or decreasing.

In addition, for each topic, developments in a key associated economic sector are illustrated using response or driving force indicators as available. These indicators illustrate specific trends within a key related economic sector and how these trends link to the overall ambition of transitioning towards a green economy in Europe.

Notes:

(2) Particularly in, but not limited to, the current policy priority areas climate change, nature and biodiversity, natural resource use and waste, environment, health and quality of life. > back

(3) Also referred to as the MDIAK reporting chain: monitoring-data-indicators-assessments-knowledge (EEA, 2011). > back

(4) Note that a key reason for this absence of dedicated indicators is that 'resilience focuses on variables that underlie the capacity of socio-ecological systems to provide ecosystem services, whereas other indicators tend to concentrate on the current state of the system or service' (Folke et al., 2002). > back

Population, consumption, and economic growth

The past five decades have seen a rise in the global population to more than 7 billion people, and a concomitant industrialisation of agriculture (GMT 1).[1] About 2 % of the global land area is currently covered by cities and infrastructures.[2] However, continued population growth and urbanisation (GMT 2) might cause this to double by 2050.[2] In addition, continued global economic growth (GMT 5), accompanied by a rapidly growing global middle class – with resource-intensive, developed-world mobility and consumption patterns (GMT 2) – is likely to increase pressure on habitats and landscapes, particularly in regions with a high and direct dependence on natural resources for economic development, such as sub-Saharan Africa.[3]

Food and bioenergy

Dietary changes might override population growth as the major driver of global demand for land in the near future.[5] Meat-based food requires about five times as much land per unit of nutritional value as its plant-based equivalent,[6] and also has a higher water footprint which is, on average, 20 times higher for beef than for cereals.[7] Since the 1960s, global average meat consumption has almost doubled, from 23 kg per person to 42 kg, with the highest consumption in the US and Europe, while China and Brazil have recorded significant increases in the last 20–30 years.[8] Estimates suggest that global annual demand for meat products may increase by a further 76 % relative to 2005 to 455 million tonnes in 2050.[9]

A rapid expansion in land allocated to cultivating bioenergy crops (GMT 7) could have significant ecological impacts, such as deforestation, nitrogen pollution (GMT 10) and freshwater scarcity – the water footprint associated with bioenergy crops might increase ten-fold in the period 2005–2030.[10] Mitigating associated pressures on ecosystems will depend on the development of bioenergy produced from agricultural and forestry residues that do not require additional land.[11]

Increases in crop yields due to efficiency gains are unlikely to compensate for the growing demand for both plant- and animal-based food, and bioenergy. This could lead to a large-scale expansion of cropland, mostly at the expense of forest and grassland ecosystems, of 120–500 Mha (million hectares) by 2050 on top of the current 1 500 Mha of global cropland – 10 % of the global land area. Furthermore, if loss of productive land to severe soil degradation and conversion to built-up areas is taken into account, cropland expansion could reach 850 Mha by 2050.[2]

Competition for land and water

Growing global competition for productive land and freshwater resources is apparent in the recent rapid increase in large-scale transnational land acquisitions, mostly in developing countries (Figure 1). Between 2005 and 2009, global land acquisitions by foreign investors totalled some 47 Mha,[12] slightly more than the area of Sweden. As a consequence, large-scale commercial farming is expanding at the expense of smallholder farmers and their access to land and water - in particular in Africa and parts of Asia.

Population growth, demand for food and climate change are expected to create significant threats to freshwater availability.[13] Scenarios on global food demand for 2050 point to severe water stress in many regions, even if strong efficiency gains in its use are made.[14] This implies a threat to both human water security and to the functioning of ecosystems. Already today, around half of the world's major river basins, home to 2.7 billion people, face water scarcity in at least one month a year,[15] and water restrictions are projected to be further amplified by climate change (GMT 9).

Figure 1: Transnational land acquisitions, 2005-2009[12]

Trends

Terrestrial biodiversity

Some scenarios, including from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), consistently project a continued decrease of global biodiversity[3] (Figure 2). Towards the mid-21st century, habitat loss due to bioenergy-crop farming and climate change is expected to gain in significance as drivers of decrease.[3][17] In a business-as-usual scenario for 2050, global terrestrial biodiversity measured as mean species abundance (MSA) is projected to decline further: from 68 % of the level that potential natural vegetation could support in 2010 to around 60 % in 2050. Strong losses may occur in, for example, in Japan/Korea, Europe, southern Africa, and Indonesia (Figure 2). These estimates may be conservative, as they exclude risks associated with transgressing possible ecosystem thresholds (Box 1) and the increasing spread of some invasive alien species because of climate change.[18]

Figure 2: Terrestrial mean species abundance, globally and for selected world regions, 2010–2050[3]

Box 1: Thresholds and tipping pointsThere is evidence that ecosystems may need to maintain a minimum quality in order to function effectively. Below critical thresholds, ecosystems may suddenly switch in character, no longer providing the same kind, or level, of services.[20] Thresholds, amplifying feedbacks and time-lag effects leading to tipping points make the impacts of global change on biodiversity hard to predict and difficult to control once they begin.An area of particular concern in this regard is the Amazon basin, where recent research suggests that complex interactions between deforestation, fire and climate change could lead to a shift to savannah-like vegetation.[21] Global-scale impacts of such a shift would include a reduced carbon sink, increased carbon emissions, and the massive loss of biodiversity.[21] Some studies even suggest that a planetary-scale tipping point, implying radical changes in the global ecosystem as a whole, might be approaching.[20]

Forests, drylands and wetlands

Demand for land has resulted in alarming tropical deforestation in recent decades. While overall global tropical deforestation remains high, some countries such as Brazil and Indonesia have slowed their rates. Mainly because of afforestation in temperate areas, some models project net global forest loss to halt after 2020.[3] While plantations provide ecosystem services such as provisioning timber and carbon sequestration, they fall short of primary forests in delivering others, particularly forest biodiversity. Primary forests are projected to decrease steadily up to 2050, with the regions of most concern being Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South East Asia.[11][22]

Likewise, drylands and wetlands are threatened by depletion and loss of biodiversity. Drylands cover about 40 % of the Earth's surface and host about 2 billion people, but their transformation into cultivated cropland continues at alarming rates, resulting in water stress and soil degradation. Very high rates of irreversible conversion of peatland and coastal wetlands such as mangroves for agriculture, forestry and infrastructure are also likely to continue.[11]

Marine ecosystems

In recent decades global marine ecosystems and their biodiversity have become increasingly threatened. In 2011, around 29 % of marine fish stocks were estimated as fished at a biologically unsustainable level and, therefore, overfished. In the same year, about 61 % were fully exploited and only 10 % held potential for increased harvesting.[23] In addition to threats from overexploitation and nutrient pollution (GMT 10), ocean warming and acidification are projected to pose serious and increasing risks (GMT 9). Modelling of alternative marine fishery strategies up to 2050 indicates that marine catches and stocks will decline in the world's main fishing regions unless catches are reduced.[24]

Implications

Loss of ecosystem services

Global and regional assessments indicate that biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation will continue or accelerate under all policy scenarios considered.[21][25] The drivers of biodiversity loss are likely to greatly outweigh the effects of any biodiversity protection measures.[25] Ecosystem degradation erodes nature's ability to support human societies,[26] as ecosystems provide a wide range of services[27][28] and indeed escalating competition for food, water and other natural resources could foster regional instability, increasing risks of conflict.

The benefits of protecting ecosystems and their associated services often far outweigh the costs.[26][29] However, market systems seldom convey the full social and economic values of ecosystem services.

Reduced climate change mitigation potential and adaptive capacity

The carbon captured by natural ecosystems is of global importance in efforts to mitigate climate change (GMT 9). As global forest destruction currently contributes about 12 % of global carbon dioxide emissions annually,[30] the efficient protection of natural habitats could contribute substantially to continued carbon storage. In view of this, an international financial mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, REDD+, has been adopted.[31]

Ecosystem-based approaches that rely on ecosystems to buffer human communities against the adverse impacts of climate change would allow natural ecosystems to play an important role in climate change adaptation.[32][33][34] Mangrove forests and coastal marshes, for example, can reduce disaster risks along exposed coastlines. And as the climate changes and temperatures increase (GMT 9) the need for ecosystem-based adaptation will increase.[35]

Unequal distribution of impacts

The continued degradation of ecosystems and their services will create challenges, in particular for lower income groups in developing countries. It is estimated, for example, that non-market ecosystem goods and services account for 89 % of the total income of the rural poor in Brazil, 75 % in Indonesia and 47 % in India. Sustainable management of ecosystems and socio-economic development are thus intertwined.[26][36][37]

For Europe, the effects of continued ecosystem degradation on poverty and inequality elsewhere in the world may lead to increased immigration to Europe. In addition, failing to take advantage of ecosystem-based solutions to tackle climate change in other parts of the world may increase costs in Europe. And crucially, transgressing critical ecological tipping points could cause unprecedented environmental, social and economic problems in Europe and elsewhere.

]]>No publisherglobal megatrendsglobal pressuresecosystem servicesglobalglobal impacts2015/02/18 00:00:00 GMT+1BriefingEEA Signals 2012 – Building the future we wanthttp://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea-signals-2012
Signals 2012 brings together environmental
issues such as sustainability, green
economy, water, waste, food, governance
and knowledge sharing. It is prepared in the
context of the United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development — Rio 2012. This year's Signals will give you a flavour of
how consumers, forward-thinking businesses
and policymakers can make a difference by
combining new technological tools — from
satellite observations to online platforms.
It will also suggest creative and effective
solutions to preserve the environment.No publishergreen economyconsumptionpublic outreachgovernanceconsumer behavioursustainabilitylife cyclesignals2012youth audienceglobal impacts2012/06/05 09:15:00 GMT+1PublicationAir pollution — key message 5http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/air-pollution/key-messages/air-pollution-2014-message-5
As European emissions decrease, there is increasing recognition of the importance of inter-continental transport of air pollutants and its contribution to poor air quality in Europe. This contribution is particularly large for ozone, persistent organic pollutants, and mercury, and for particulate matter during air pollution episodes. Further international cooperation to mitigate inter-continental flows of air pollution will help nations meet their own goals and objectives for protecting public health and environmental quality..
]]>No publisherSOER2010air qualityglobal impactsair pollutionpollutants2010/11/26 10:36:18 GMT+1SOER 2010 Message (Deprecated)